A different view of Dan 9.
I'm seeing the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 a little differently than I have been. And I think it may make reading it a little more cohesive and readable, which should be what an account is all about.
Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
In vss. 26-27 there is a central character, the "ruler who will come," which I believe refers to the Roman leader--not a specific leader, but basically a position. He will do several things, it appears.
1) He will have his people destroy Jerusalem and the temple.
2) He will confirm a covenant with many for a Week, presumably of years.
3) He will put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the Week.
4) He will set up an abomination that causes desolation.
What's different in my position now is that I used to think Christ was the one who confirms a covenant with many for a Week, and put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the Week. But that seems to confuse the cohesiveness of the discourse, and muddy who is doing what. If we see all of the elements being orchestrated by a single entity, the Roman leadership, then it makes cohesive sense, and the prophecy seems to flow more evenly.
So how did the Roman leader(s) make this happen? He brought about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple from 70-135 AD. Leading up to this, Rome initially allowed the Jews to continue under their temple covenant during the ministry of Christ, which lasted 3.5 years. This was the 70th Week of the 70 Weeks Prophecy.
Then a Roman leader, Pontius Pilate, put Christ to death in the middle of this 70th Week, since Jesus died apparently after only 3.5 years of ministry--half of a Week. This put an end to divine acceptance of sacrifices and offerings made at the temple. The veil was rent at Jesus' death.
Finally, a Roman general set up an Army around Jerusalem and the temple, presenting an "abomination of desolation." It was a display of raw pagan power, set to destroy God's temple. There were actually 2 Roman generals involved in this, Cestius Gallus in 66 AD and Titus in 70 AD.
This seems to allow the passage to flow more smoothly in the vein of its context. The context, largely, has to do with the future of the temple and with the coming of Messiah.
Daniel is praying about the restoration of the temple, and God sends an angel to explain that over a 70 Weeks period the temple will be restored and remain as such until the coming of Messiah.
The rise of Rome, the 4th Kingdom Daniel mentioned earlier in chs. 2 and 7, will cooperate with this covenant in the time of Messiah, who comes in the 70th Week. During the time of Jesus, the Romans will all the Gospel of Messiah to be disseminated until he is judged and crucified.
The "end that is decreed" is either one of two options. Either this "end" is something decreed to end the temple by the "ruler who will come." Or, this end is something that will come to Rome itself, taking place in 476 AD. It depends on how the words apply.
Roman leadership did not immediately come to an end, but in 476 AD it did come to an end. The Roman imperial tradition continued in the East, and was later restored in the West. But the Western branch of the ancient Roman Empire did come to an end.
But the context seems rather to have to do with the cessation of Jewish worship, and perhaps the reference was to this, which happened at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD? After all, no immediate vengeance was poured out upon the Roman perpetrator of this judgment.
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
The word "him" here may also be translated at "it," apparently. As such, it may be rendered, more properly, as...
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on IT."
I'm seeing the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 a little differently than I have been. And I think it may make reading it a little more cohesive and readable, which should be what an account is all about.
Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
In vss. 26-27 there is a central character, the "ruler who will come," which I believe refers to the Roman leader--not a specific leader, but basically a position. He will do several things, it appears.
1) He will have his people destroy Jerusalem and the temple.
2) He will confirm a covenant with many for a Week, presumably of years.
3) He will put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the Week.
4) He will set up an abomination that causes desolation.
What's different in my position now is that I used to think Christ was the one who confirms a covenant with many for a Week, and put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the Week. But that seems to confuse the cohesiveness of the discourse, and muddy who is doing what. If we see all of the elements being orchestrated by a single entity, the Roman leadership, then it makes cohesive sense, and the prophecy seems to flow more evenly.
So how did the Roman leader(s) make this happen? He brought about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple from 70-135 AD. Leading up to this, Rome initially allowed the Jews to continue under their temple covenant during the ministry of Christ, which lasted 3.5 years. This was the 70th Week of the 70 Weeks Prophecy.
Then a Roman leader, Pontius Pilate, put Christ to death in the middle of this 70th Week, since Jesus died apparently after only 3.5 years of ministry--half of a Week. This put an end to divine acceptance of sacrifices and offerings made at the temple. The veil was rent at Jesus' death.
Finally, a Roman general set up an Army around Jerusalem and the temple, presenting an "abomination of desolation." It was a display of raw pagan power, set to destroy God's temple. There were actually 2 Roman generals involved in this, Cestius Gallus in 66 AD and Titus in 70 AD.
This seems to allow the passage to flow more smoothly in the vein of its context. The context, largely, has to do with the future of the temple and with the coming of Messiah.
Daniel is praying about the restoration of the temple, and God sends an angel to explain that over a 70 Weeks period the temple will be restored and remain as such until the coming of Messiah.
The rise of Rome, the 4th Kingdom Daniel mentioned earlier in chs. 2 and 7, will cooperate with this covenant in the time of Messiah, who comes in the 70th Week. During the time of Jesus, the Romans will all the Gospel of Messiah to be disseminated until he is judged and crucified.
The "end that is decreed" is either one of two options. Either this "end" is something decreed to end the temple by the "ruler who will come." Or, this end is something that will come to Rome itself, taking place in 476 AD. It depends on how the words apply.
Roman leadership did not immediately come to an end, but in 476 AD it did come to an end. The Roman imperial tradition continued in the East, and was later restored in the West. But the Western branch of the ancient Roman Empire did come to an end.
But the context seems rather to have to do with the cessation of Jewish worship, and perhaps the reference was to this, which happened at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD? After all, no immediate vengeance was poured out upon the Roman perpetrator of this judgment.
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
The word "him" here may also be translated at "it," apparently. As such, it may be rendered, more properly, as...
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on IT."
